Record Labels Kill Off 'Legal P2P' Before It Even Gets A Chance

from the another-shot-in-the-foot dept

One of the big discussion points at MidemNet, this year, was the idea that ISPs might start offering "legalized" file sharing offerings, where for a certain fee, you would be able to file share without worry of a lawsuit. Depending how this is implemented it could be quite problematic, but structured in a voluntary way, it would at least be an interesting experiment to watch. And, in fact, at MidemNet, folks like Feargal Sharkey suggested that it would only be a matter of weeks until we heard about such offerings in the UK. That may not be the case. The Register is reporting that UK broadband provider Virgin has killed off plans for just such a service that it was just about set to announce... due to ridiculous demands from at least two of the record labels involved. Despite the fact that the plan was to create a "legal" P2P offering that would track file sharing using deep packet inspection (ick), Sony Music and Universal Music supposedly demanded that Virgin agree to block file uploads and downloads from users' PCs.

That really doesn't make much sense -- as the whole point of P2P (legal or not) is that it involves people uploading and downloading from their computers. Still, this also explains part of why Virgin was so willing to jump on the recording industry's bandwagon for sending warning notices to customers and threatening to kick them offline. It was apparently step one in a negotiation to see about working out a deal for a "legalized" P2P solution. While I still don't believe such a solution is the best way to do things, it at least seems like a step in a more reasonable direction... so, of course, the big record labels were quick to kill it off.

Reader Comments

I am going to take my library of 100+ CDs, rip them to disk and go door to door giving it away. Stop that RIAA! Keep this up, The more you push, the more you get further away from resolving YOUR crisis and encouraging the use of file sharring instead of legit digital sales.

Re:

Fuck'em! Im so sick of hearing all this BS about these lables, They all need to die off so that music can live. They are effectivly killing off music. I hope more musicians see this and start dropping them like the hot potatoes they are today.

it seems we all agree (on techdirt at least) that the record labels neither know what they want nor do they know whats good for them. Frankly even if that "legalized P2P" was implemented idk if i liked it or not.

But the theory behind it is what the ISP's and Record Label's have been asking for for a long time.

As Far as ISP Goes if all the P2P users are on its network it could reduce quite a load on its servers (since ISPs seem to be complaining about how the P2P users are hogging all the bandwidth available on there networks).

As Far as Labels goes aren't they lobbying for a music tax for all internet users? (granted the fact that this plan was supposed to be optional they don't get as many subscribers as they were hoping for but isn't 10% (random number) better than 0%?)

I understand that it used to be a big hassle to record, press vinyl, package, distribute, promote etc. But now, they could pay a hack of a web designer to build a site with downloads (free or paid) for a fraction of the cost. And if they wanted to charge for discs or mp3's, the could do so, charge 1/5th the price of wal-mart and still make more money.

It seems to me that the artists are partly to blame for continuing to go along with the labels. As long as they keep signing contracts, the labels and RIAA will still have reason to exist.

It is the equivalent of someone paying a monthly fee for an email account, voicemail, pager etc. Five, ten, fifteen years ago, doing so made sense, but why pay someone exorbitant amounts of money for something that you can get for free?

Re:

If you want to see music die off, just let every hack of a musician start putting up their stuff for sale on their own websites on CDR media...

The reason musicians NEED the labels is to PRODUCE, EDIT and DISTRIBUTE the material.

When was the last time you saw a hack musician studio with $500k or more worth of editing equipment? When was the last time you hear a CDR of a non professionally recorded song that was worth a crap?

And can you see someone like George Straight sitting in his den packaging CD's for distribution? When would he have time to create more music?

Quit being fools, the only people benefiting from this so called crap y'all dish out are the bands that sell only a few thousand CD's a year, or that have crap for music that the labels passed on.

This site's constant babble about how the industry needs to give it's music away for free is just crap being spit out to get visitors to view the site so it can pimp it's advertising space.

It costs REAL money to produce QUALITY music and to distribute that music in the quantities that are required by the market. I would be shocked if the average PROFESSIONAL CD costs less than 500k to produce and get ready for distribution.

Re: Re:

The reason musicians NEED the labels is to PRODUCE, EDIT and DISTRIBUTE the material.

When has labels handled producing and editing? They have only funded and distributed. Nowadays Amazon, iTunes, Jamendo, P2P etc. can take care of the distribution. And only an idiot takes funding from labels.

Re: Re:

Ahem...

First of all, you seem to be confusing what a label is. The label has nothing directly to do with the production of the record, unless they pay for it. An unsigned musician can still pay for studio time and get the same results as if a label paid for it. Possibly better results actually, as there's no pressure to make it "more commercial" by over-producing the life out of it. Labels and financiers and marketers, and often compromise the end product to make sure they (and often not the artists) some profit.

If an artist wants to get involved with a label (and there are thousands of quality independent labels out there, not just the corporations you seem to be thinking of), that's their choice. But there's little that they can do that an artists can't do themselves if they wish.

"It costs REAL money to produce QUALITY music"

No it doesn't. It's like movies - some of the most expensive albums to produce have been some of the worst (unless you're making a case for Michael Jackson's Invincible as being the best album of all time), while some of the best have cost moderate amounts of money. It's all down to taste, of course, but over-production (read: wasted money) is one of the most common complaints about the way modern music sounds anyway.

Then again, nobody's saying that artists cannot make money. They simply can't depend on doing a few weeks' work to produce the album, then sit back and collect royalties for 50 years without doing any further work. They can certainly spend a lot less than $500k to get a good record.

"This site's constant babble about how the industry needs to give it's music away for free is just crap being spit out to get visitors to view the site so it can pimp it's advertising space."

Then why do you come here? You're spouting your own crap (for example, where in this article is giving the music away for free mentioned?), while totally misunderstanding the points at hand. It's sad that idiots like you have these opinions, but that's why I don't buy RIAA product - hopefully some of you will see some sense while I support musicians big and small who don't think like you.

By the way, you also seem to have a rather skewed perspective on the word "professional" with regard to a musician. In my mind, that's a person who makes a living from music, which almost every artist mentioned here from Trent Reznor to Jill Sobule to Jonathan Coulton to Corey Smith does. Does "professional" to you include these people (in which case what's your point), or are you only including the "artists" who tumble through the corporate filter into your RIAA-controlled radio? In which case, please shut up as you haven't a clue what you're saying.

Re: Re:

Both right

Actually I see both sides. Recording, editing, and sale of music is potentially cheaper and more accessible than ever, yet the internet is a humongous place to stand out in. The value of the big labels is in their control over distribution channels and their ability to throw millions of dollars into marketing in premium media outlets. It's probably just a matter of time before some of that control either moves to the internet as well, or becomes totally irrelevant in any case. When that finally happens, the big labels will lose relevancy. Apple's iTunes is half-way there which is the reason it has become so feared.

Re: qtrax

That seems pretty dumb to me. While the ISP plan was hideous and flawed, it would have at least guaranteed some form of revenue. Since the ISP were providing the connection, you could collect a minimum amount.

How, exactly, can you make people use Qtrax to the same extent, and collect similar revenue? Bear in mind that it doesn't even work with all OSes yet (nor iPods if MS DRM is still depended on as it initially was - Qtrax is blocked for me at work so can't check right now). The service also depends on advertising (which traditionally doesn't make lots of profit during a recession).

I wouldnt buy music if i havnt heard it on the net

I dont go around like some people that watch MTV... Mostly school age kids that are in school. I'll only buy music if ive listened to it in the first place. When i was young i bought so many cds and like 90 percent of them sucked, so basically the artist who made sucky music made tons... other than the real artist who made real good music.Basically i will never buy a new cd if i havnt heard it on my pc through my good speakers. Nickelback's new album dark horse,after i heard it through my nice speakers i went to the store and bought the cd for myself and my brother,thats a very good album imo.Most of the music today sucks, theres very few good artist.. The good artist should have there music heard on the net,and people would want the original cd,well i know i would and i do buy them cd's. Just like ACDC's new album it was so mass produced every time i hear there song rock n roll train on the radio and its like they play it over and over i feel like pounding my head in the windshield, untill i knock myself out so i want have to hear it again.

Re: I wouldnt buy music if i havnt heard it on the net

Yup, pretty much the same thing I do. I downloaded the new (hed) P.E. CD "New World Orphans" (3 different versions were released) and bought one (white cover), but still kept and listen to the one I downloaded since all the bonus tracks from all the versions fit on one CD. The CD is well worth the purchase, but why should I have to buy the CD 3 times just for a few extra tracks each?

I tend to give a CD a listen before buying since I'm not exactly rich enough to go out and buy a bunch of CD's or download them all from iTunes and then hope they were worth the purchase. I have over 200 legally purchased CD's, and about 150 DVD's. All the CD's I have I at one time did download illegally, but it lead to a purchase later down the road if it was worth it and I had the money. If I only like a couple of songs on a CDthen I'll just grab it from either iTunes or Amazon (I personally like Amazon better). So, yes...I agree with Mike on pretty much everything he writes about since it makes sense, and I know that I for one am in the gray area since I do download illegally to try out stuff, but will buy it if it is worth my money.

Oh, and the whole thing about artists having to spend $500K or more for a "professional" CD to be produced...that is just not correct at all. My cousin made his CD...writing, recording, and production for under $1K. Now, yes he only had 500 produced initially, but why would you want to produce millions of units if you only need a few hundred to start? From there he just reorders copies from the master and produces only what he thinks he'll need since there is no sense in holding on to a whole bunch of copies and hoping to push them out. He makes a decent living and actually gives away most of the CD's. Like he always has about 50 in his trunk and if we go out he will leave one with the tip for a waitress (the CD has his contact info), or if he hears someone jamming out to similar music he'll give them a copy to check out. I asked if he wanted me to upload it to a P2P and he actually said he didn't care, but he is comfortable with what he is doing since he is able to pay his bills and support his family...so all is good for him :) He said he didn't want to go commercial and become a dickhead...lmao.

Re: Re: I wouldnt buy music if i havnt heard it on the net

One other note...the software we initially used was illegally downloaded as well since it was our first "project" and the software is really expensive so we wanted to try out different ones like Storm Music Studio, Fruity Loops, Audition, and Sound Forge. We ended up using Storm and buying a legit copy after we got the hang of it and it seemed to work the best for us. The demo was too limiting on the software so I grabbed a copy from usenet and we used it for his first CD. His second CD was made using the legit copy though since he had made enough to cover it and liked it. So I download 4 programs illegally, but ended up dropping $450 (for 3 licenses...great investment BTW). So was it wrong? I guess that is up to how you see it. We used it more to "try before you buy", and it worked...Arturia made a sale off of "pirated" software. Win-win situation really since we got to try the full version fully unlocked and it was good enough for us to actually buy 3 licenses (my house, his house, and our make shift studio...lol).

Virgin made no details available to the public other than, per the linked article, it does not engage in speculation.

Virgin's tech partner made no details available to the public.

Sony made no details available to the public.

Warner is not even mentioned.

...and yet, here we have a headline touting those big, bad labels killing a deal. Why? It appears because "sources suggest" this to be the case. Of course, the sources are not identified so that their credibility and knowledge of the situation can be ascertained.

Re:

Yeah, this isn't a court of law, though.

Virgin have made some very suspicious and questionable moves of late that have defied any logical explanation under normal circumstances. Then, this potential deal - in light of which previous actions do make some sense - is called off. The reasons for this are tiresomely clear and common for those of us who watch the various deals that go on, and understand the reasons they fail.

Since a) this is a blog and thus a platform for opinion and not unbiased, impartial journalism and b) nobody directly involved with the issue is making any public comment, what else are we to do other than work on educated guesses and assumptions? I'm sure that if these people were to make comments and give us more information, said details would be looked at and any incorrect assumptions above retracted. But they're not doing that yet, so a public resource for opinion and discussion is used for that very purpose. What, again, is your problem? Oh, and:

"Warner is not even mentioned."

What do they have to do with it? The article above and the article linked are both related to talks between Universal, Sony and Virgin. What do Warner have to do with it, unless they're (quite likely) one of the other major labels that were hinted as being in talks? Why do you feel their omission means anything?

18...People who comment to posted articles are one thing, but preparation and posting of an article is quite another if it is based on something other than reliable sources of accurate and timely information. After looking at the linked article it seems clear that the headline and some of the comments in the article are unsubstantiated.

Yes, this is not a court of law, but even in private life inordinate reliance on hearsay is not a wise idea.

Re:

"preparation and posting of an article is quite another if it is based on something other than reliable sources of accurate and timely information."

Why? Again, this isn't a primary news source, it's a place for comment on news. Where the primary sources leave out information, or those involved in a particular activity refuse to comment, speculation has to be made and the author's opinion expressed.

That is *exactly* what a blog is for, and you'd be better off going to other sites if you find this objectionable. Mike states his opinion, references sources for the information he's commenting upon and has a good track record for actually retracting and/or apologising where he's been proven wrong. What more can you ask for from a non-primary journalistic source?

"Yes, this is not a court of law, but even in private life inordinate reliance on hearsay is not a wise idea."

Again, what's inordinate about it? Hearsay and assumptions are being used in the absence of other information. If we don't rely on those, then this issue won't be discussed until the dust has settled, at which point it's too late to either make our feelings heard or do anything about it.

There's nothing wrong with that as long as the nature of those assumptions are being made clear. Yes, you shouldn't rely on what a random guy online says any more than you should take the guy down the pub seriously for news, but you have to be dumb to think you can to begin with...

Even when we had major labels that produced good music, 95% of what was available was utter crap. 5% of music earns a place in the public consciousness and begins to increase in value by becoming part of the culture, and if a song is still making money after fifty years, who deserves to collect it, the artist or the label or the songwriter?

Labels did indeed have a lot to do with the production of music, not just manufacturing, distribution and promotion. They weren't merely banks as they are today, they chose producers, selected material, provided top notch studios and payed attention to something that was called artist development.In short, they earned their money, and if the industry wants to see profits again like they had back then, I'd suggest they look into that, instead of suing college students and grannies for sharing music that's already been bought.

It galls me to think how much better Corey Smith's recordings might be if he could afford a decent producer and studio, and how much better his songs might be if he were free to focus on songwriting rather than merely touring non-stop or with an occasional break for a studio quickie.

A great deal of musical commerce exists already outside label control, it's called live music and there is already a framework in place for monetizing it; bars and restaurants with jukeboxes and stages already pay a blanket license fee to ASCAP/BMI, I see no reason why ISPs shouldn't do the same with peer-to-peer, so long as they're willing to provide valuable data to the recording industry that can be used to improve their product. If everybody in the industry wasn't so busy trying to pick each other's pockets, maybe they'd see that it's in their own best interest to come up with a solution that works for fans, artists, labels and ISPs.

Re:

I agree with some of what you say, however:

"It galls me to think how much better Corey Smith's recordings might be if he could afford a decent producer and studio,"

If the $4.2 million figure is correct from the previous reported article, I think he can. Even if he's not able to afford the upfront costs for some reason, I'm sure that he could come to some agreement to share profits with a forward-looking producer and studio?

Besides, "better" is incredibly subjective. Maybe the albums sound *exactly* the way Smith want them to sound? No type of sound suits everybody - some bands overproduce a record to within an inch of their life, while The White Stripes mostly use equipment manufactured in the 1960s in order to achieve a raw sound. Which is "better"?

"how much better his songs might be if he were free to focus on songwriting rather than merely touring non-stop or with an occasional break for a studio quickie."

Some of the best songs ever written have been written in 20 minutes, or in a bored jam session on the tour bus. Month-long jam sessions are often tiresome and sap the creativity out of a band. Many bands prefer to try out new material on the road, adjusting the song to fit crowd reactions during the gigs, thus improving them for their audience. Again, it's subjective, and down to Smith to work out what works for him.

"I see no reason why ISPs shouldn't do the same with peer-to-peer, so long as they're willing to provide valuable data to the recording industry that can be used to improve their product."

Frankly, I do. there are a number of major concerns I have about this kind of activity. There are the privacy issues (deep packet inspection on *everything*?), questions of how the payments would be handled (if I download a track by Hybrid, I want the money to go to Hybrid, not Britney), the legal implications and the implications for other industries (opening the floodgates for everyone from photographers to movie studios to demand their cut). Meanwhile, control remains in the undeserving hands of the major labels rather than the independents who are still performing all the tasks you described (discovering and cultivating new talents rather than holding karaoke contests for their next mime artist or suing grannies).

But, this would absolutely kill the sold music market. If everyone can download legally, there's no reason to buy CDs or downloads - killing iTunes and many other players in the market. As for the "valuable data... that can be used to improve their product", you're definitely barking up the wrong tree. In fact, it can skew the industry the other way. For example, the guy who currently downloads the new Britney album from P2P and then buys the new Raconteurs album (and yes these people exist) would instead download both. This would skew the data further toward the Britney side than before (50% "sales" for both, whereas it was previously 100% sales for the latter), taking "interest" away from the Raconteurs and thus putting their contract into jeopardy. If this were to happen, another Britney-style act would be sought after rather than another Raconteurs, lowering (IMHO) the quality of music available overall.

I'm working on a niche distro doing this, hopefully launching in the next month. Was going to start with big labels because some major brands here are interested in it but they wanted to see the other's jump on board first. Decided to avoid all the bullshit Virgin has just gone through and start with the indies who 'get it'.

Am I really so unusual ?

I am 40+, with 3 kids. It is a long time since I hung out in a record shop. I have a few different MP3 players (no big names, no DRM supported) and kit in my car that can play MP3's off CDs. Sometimes I only get to really hear music via a laptop on a train to a meeting.

I want to be able to (legally) buy MP3s so I can listen to my music on any of my devices and also have a means of discovering new music that I might like.

Amazon MP3 downloads are the first service I have found that really does that for me (now they have finally arrived in the UK). And if they could be arsed to watermark the MP3s they could prevent me from taking the piss and uploading them to the net for others to download for free. Who knows, maybe they already do.

All the other stupid DRM schemes have proved to be a royal PITA and just stopped me spending my money on downloads.

Occasionally I want to see what is on the CD box. (Maybe see the credits, the lyrics). So I hit the web for that stuff.

To carry even a fraction of my CD collection around with me I need to remove all the boxes. Then I cannot see the track list (rarely printed on the CD). But on my MP3 player I can see track names. So in fact the electronic format is more use, data wise.

Illegal file sharing as I understand it would enable me to have 1000 albums for nothing. My answer to that is the same as my answer to 400+ cable TV channels. Who in the real world has the time to actually consume any of it ?

I am sure that the people who CAN find the time to listen to huge amounts of stolen music are not spending the day earning any money, so I cannot see how they are a lost demographic from a revenue point of view.

Real "legal" music sales are falling because
- less new original music acts are being signed
- people (or thiose with jobs and money) have less time these days to listen to music
- the methods of discovering good new music (which for the bulk of the population = radio stations) are corporate owned clones with tiny formulaic playlists.

Meanwhile the "industry" are obsessing over a minor segment of the population who would find a way to illegally share stuff whatever you do.

The "industry" needs to ignore the students with no disposable inome and reconnect with me. Make it easy for me to find and buy music I like without stupid inconveniences.

OK, this is a huge generalisation, but you can see my point. Putting me off buying music loses them more sales than letting a student pass a copy of a new album round (thereby arguably promoting it).

I have illegally copied music before - a friend visited and I ripped a few of her CDs. Later I went out and bought more of the artists I found I liked. Similarly, I used to share my cable broadband with a neighbour (my wireless reached his house). Totally illegal. But when I moved out, he subscribed for his own. By breaking their rules on sharing, I got Comcast a new customer.

Re: Am I really so unusual ?

Totally illegal. But when I moved out, he subscribed for his own. By breaking their rules on sharing, I got Comcast a new customer.

No one will ever be sure, but is it possible that your neighbor would have signed up with Comcast far earlier had he not been able to piggyback on your subscription? The fact you note that once you moved he signed up suggests he would have signed up earlier but for your wireless sharing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Am I really so unusual ?

michial doesnt know what hes talking about

Dear Michial- sir, you obviously have no clue as to what is involved in composing, recording, mixing, producing, mastering, and promoting music for any market. Here are a few nuggets of gross ignorance that just a little simple research could have prevented:
"hack musician studio with $500k or more worth of editing equipment'
Who says you need 500k worth of equipment? a computer with a MOTU interface and preamps-less than $2000..good mike like a Rode NT- $300 Pro level audio recording and editing software range from free- Audacity to mid Cubase $400 to high-end: Nuendo $1800. That doesn't seem to equal $500,000 and you will find the results these tools in many major label releases.
"the bands that sell only a few thousand CD's a year"
Um ever heard of Nine Inch Nails? Radiohead? You know those obscure bands that play arenas and sell hundreds of thousands of CDs, downloads, and merch. How about Ani Defranco who though not as big in industry terms as the former two is still a household name among the collage crowd and still, as always, releases all of her material out of her own company? How about pre-internet examples of independent artists like the Grateful Dead and Frank Zappa?
Ive been working in this industry for over 20 years as a performer and producer both live and in studio. I remember the days before computers and MIDI democratized the recording industry. EVEN in those days, my band played gigs to make studio money and we never involved a label in the deal, yet had access to what you so arrogantly term PRO recording equipment and producers. I wouldn't take exception to your opinions if they came from any real understanding about the subject. Maybe you should stick to just listening to music and let those who know and have experienced more posit INFORMED opinions about the current state of the recording/music industry. thank you for your time.
Raybone risewisestudios

Ignoring the subject of business models, both old and new, just what is it about music that gives rise to the notion that people should be free from any constraints to download and upload music that they fully know is not authorized to be placed on the internet for copying by anyone who wants to do so? The same can be said for movies and for software.

Yes, new ways are being discovered daily for content creators to get their creative works out to the public at large and earn income from doing so, in some cases copious amounts of income. These creators do so with the expectation, and oftentimes with explicit encouragement, that their creations will be disseminated at no charge. Of course, this is certainly their prerogative and results from a conscious decision on their part. However, not everyone feels the same way. Some, for whatever their reasons, do not want it shared without their prior permission. This is likewise their prerogative, even if one thinks they are being short sighted.

It seems to me that if one does not like being limited by what the latter group chooses to pursue, then the proper and ethical course of action is to simply look elsewhere.

to ac 19

yes my parents are extremely proud of me when I expose pompous jackasses for what they are. that's because they brought me up right. i'm curious to know why you seem to want to insult my wonderful mom and dad after all I did was point out a simple truth. this is a blog post, not a trial and anyone who is not an ip lawyer would recognize tht stating an opinion based on reasonable reporting is a perfectly reasonable way to start a conversation and is not hearsay.

luckily most people are smart enough to recognize the diference and to know that only a pompous jackass lawyer who disagrees with the direction of the conversation would whip out some totally irrelevant line about hearsay. all it really showed was that your afraid the points mike makes are on target but since it goes against your ip religion the ony natural response is to make a snide disparaging remark about hearsay to divert the conversation. perhaps it makes you feel good, but to most thinking people it just highlights the fact that you are a pompous jackass.

but I guess that as long as you sleep well at night thinking that you showed everyone here, that's your perogative. denial is a powerful force.

Re: to ac 19

I take it that your keyboard is missing its "shift" key. I have a spare keyboard you are welcome to have.

As for "hearsay", the title and concluding sentence of the article are declarative in nature. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the linked article upon which declarative statements can be made about what the music labels did or did not do regarding the negotiations with Virgin. The only ones who appear to know what actually happened are the labels and Virgin, and none of them are talking.

Re: Re: to ac 19

The only ones who appear to know what actually happened are the labels and Virgin, and none of them are talking.

And thus, according to MLS, our resident defender of all things IP, we should all shut up about it.

MLS, I use this blog to start conversations. It is not, as JJ pointed out, a trial. It is not reporting. It is based on what is being talked about, and I present my opinion and you are free to present yours -- or you are free to present additional facts to the contrary.

The Register presented their information, and I wrote my post based on it. While Virgin is not talking publicly about it, there seems to be pretty good support for what The Register has said.

I stand by the post. When you are in charge of running Techdirt, then you are free to determine what is acceptable to post and what is not.

Re: to ac 19

I'm intrigued. Where's your blog which contains the opposing opinion, complete with evidence and links to relevant material to back up your statements? Maybe even something that can be linked to you personally so we can check out your credentials?

Oh, you haven't got one? You prefer to anonymously troll the comments sections of other peoples' blogs with unsubstantiated claims instead? OK...

It took the music industry long enough to embrace the internet and Ecommerce... it spent so much time and money trying to close any file-sharing sites and P2P networks that when it finally gave in it came up with rubbish subscriber sites - but often didn't include all the labels and thus many songs weren't available. So basically they came up with a crap service whist P2P grew and grew.

I think its about time the record industry stopped living in the past, gave more credit to their artists instead of their fat-cat directors, and looked at working with the digital age instead of against it.

michial doesnt know what hes talking about part 2

Michial,
firstly, I never ment to imply you were an idiot, only that perhaps you are a bit misinformed. Perhaps I worded my objections so strongly due to the arrogant pomposity of your original post which seemed to discount out of hand any opposing opinion or evidence. My apologies.
Second, this is a small detail, but it must be said that after so long in the industry, people like myself tend to get a hold of lots of gear over time. My contention was that about 5000 was all anyone needed to sound as professional as George Strait or Janet Jackson. You don't need to build a million dollar echo chamber when you have software that can virtually model it.
Thirdly, I have years of experience working in studios of all kinds and at all levels. I can certainly say that there is a difference between a 15,000 compressor and a software plug in. If you work with enough gear you learn that the choice of internal electronic components makes a difference and especially during the formative years of computer vs analog recording gear. HOWEVER, technology has now advanced to where that difference gets smaller every day. Because of this most of the big and famous (500,000 and up) rooms are losing money and the old analog equipment is falling into disrepair (which I lament) as the people with the skills to maintain them are dying off. As Ive personally experienced, many times an engineer or producer will choose the the plug in over the outboard gear due to a much better convenience and workflow.
As for myself, I personally never desired FAME and do not consider it a measure my success. I run my studio, I run the occasional sound production, I promote concerts, I write music and perform it in various projects. This gives me enough to buy a house and live free of any boss or grind. Yes my little studio works ok for me. When I release the new music I'm working on I will try every idea Ive encountered here and with appreciation. If my experience with this warrants attention by any here I will be more than happy to share the details once the game is afoot. Thank you for tuning in Raybone

michial doesnt know what hes talking about

Dear Michial- sir, you obviously have no clue as to what is involved in composing, recording, mixing, producing, mastering, and promoting music for any market. Here are a few nuggets of gross ignorance that just a little simple research could have prevented:
"hack musician studio with $500k or more worth of editing equipment'
Who says you need 500k worth of equipment? a computer with a MOTU interface and preamps-less than $2000..good mike like a Rode NT- $300 Pro level audio recording and editing software range from free- Audacity to mid Cubase $400 to high-end: Nuendo $1800. That doesn't seem to equal $500,000 and you will find the results these tools in many major label releases.
"the bands that sell only a few thousand CD's a year"
Um ever heard of Nine Inch Nails? Radiohead? You know those obscure bands that play arenas and sell hundreds of thousands of CDs, downloads, and merch. How about Ani Defranco who though not as big in industry terms as the former two is still a household name among the collage crowd and still, as always, releases all of her material out of her own company? How about pre-internet examples of independent artists like the Grateful Dead and Frank Zappa?
Ive been working in this industry for over 20 years as a performer and producer both live and in studio. I remember the days before computers and MIDI democratized the recording industry. EVEN in those days, my band played gigs to make studio money and we never involved a label in the deal, yet had access to what you so arrogantly term PRO recording equipment and producers. I wouldn't take exception to your opinions if they came from any real understanding about the subject. Maybe you should stick to just listening to music and let those who know and have experienced more posit INFORMED opinions about the current state of the recording/music industry. thank you for your time.
Raybone risewisestudios

michial doesnt know what hes talking about part 2

Michial,
firstly, I never ment to imply you were an idiot, only that perhaps you are a bit misinformed. Perhaps I worded my objections so strongly due to the arrogant pomposity of your original post which seemed to discount out of hand any opposing opinion or evidence. My apologies.
Second, this is a small detail, but it must be said that after so long in the industry, people like myself tend to get a hold of lots of gear over time. My contention was that about 5000 was all anyone needed to sound as professional as George Strait or Janet Jackson. You don't need to build a million dollar echo chamber when you have software that can virtually model it.
Thirdly, I have years of experience working in studios of all kinds and at all levels. I can certainly say that there is a difference between a 15,000 compressor and a software plug in. If you work with enough gear you learn that the choice of internal electronic components makes a difference and especially during the formative years of computer vs analog recording gear. HOWEVER, technology has now advanced to where that difference gets smaller every day. Because of this most of the big and famous (500,000 and up) rooms are losing money and the old analog equipment is falling into disrepair (which I lament) as the people with the skills to maintain them are dying off. As Ive personally experienced, many times an engineer or producer will choose the the plug in over the outboard gear due to a much better convenience and workflow.
As for myself, I personally never desired FAME and do not consider it a measure my success. I run my studio, I run the occasional sound production, I promote concerts, I write music and perform it in various projects. This gives me enough to buy a house and live free of any boss or grind. Yes my little studio works ok for me. When I release the new music I'm working on I will try every idea Ive encountered here and with appreciation. If my experience with this warrants attention by any here I will be more than happy to share the details once the game is afoot. Thank you for tuning in
Raybone